Slider

Karma: 1,384

Slider 15 Aug 2022 18:07 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
on: The Parable of the Boy Who Cried 5% Chance of Wolf
So what is the point where its correct to bin the sensor as alarmist?
Pondering this I lean that the main takeaway is that if you “cry” anything then no amount of what you cry can make it effective for low-probablity events. Crying “there is a 0.001% chance of wolf” is in practise going to be nearly equivalent to communicating about 20% chance of wolf. But if you say “there is a 0.001% chance of wolf” maybe that works for 5% and if you whisper you can get under 1%.
The second is that people can disagree what prepardness thresholds are proper. Say that the village runs out 10 times in responce to 5% reports and then can only harvest half the crop for being exhausted from running all the time killing 20% people to starvation. As a wolf-expert I am not likely to be the most well versed on food shortage events. So when I make judgement calls on where it is better to be safe than sorry I am likely to be atleast somewhat ignorant. So even an honest private trade-off might not be be socially optimal. The problem disappears if the village thinks the fortifications for nothing are worth the effort.

Slider 14 Aug 2022 17:35 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
on: What is an agent in reductionist materialism?
Before I got to the point in my education where I learned what the CPU has eaten it seemed that software programming languages had a ladder of more abstract and more concredte languages but it seemed it was just an issue of translating one language to the other. The primitive “takes orders” capacity seemed mysterious how it could ever appear or be explained in the hierachy. The beauty of learning what a primitive computer was like is in that none of the parts “take orders”, its the software that is done entirely in hardware.
But processors are extrenally driven. For agents I suspect the core property is auto-poesis ie being run from signals emerging from within. Circuits will do some computation when excited but then “sleep” if the enviornemnt is not actively pushing in. Computers can keep up the excitation but will do essentially the same pattern unless disturbed from outside. Agents are the things that keep on changing their pattern even if the environment leaves them alone (or their evolution is because of the echo they make into the environment).

Slider 12 Aug 2022 18:36 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Screwtape’s comment on: Troll Timers
I am imagining figuratively “grasping for air” in the end of the slow turn which would seem to make early fast turn and late fast turns have different attention profiles.
I guess I have a image about if every turn had a chance to be fast or slow then it is more vivid that the question how that turn would have went if it was the other type. Also knowing that both players have their fast turns simultaneusly avoids feeling the edge that the speeds have against each other (being sloppy is not that bad when the exploiter is also confused).
Having random amounts and at also potentially in the beginning would make the players think more about the value of such things. I would imagine being able to see the weak spots in fast plays would make players hope for slow turns in the “weak spots”. Similarly of using a coin and noting on what side you want it to land rather than on which side it lands.

Slider 12 Aug 2022 9:21 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Troll Timers
I expected the turns that take long to be unpreditably assigned. With a known schedule I worry that it distorts play in that the fast and slow turns are not comparable.

Slider 9 Aug 2022 20:39 UTC
4 points
0 ∶ 0
on: How would two superintelligent AIs interact, if they are unaligned with each other?
ARM vs CORE means Total Annihilation

Slider 9 Aug 2022 12:58 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Chris_Leong’s comment on: Counterfactuals are Confusing because of an Ontological Shift
I feel like I am having reading comprehension difficulties.
So the Triviality Perspective claims that you should one-box, but also that this is an incredibly boring claim that doesn’t provide much insight into decision theory.
This passage seems a lot like applying the concept to get an answer out of two option scenario.
If you accept the premise of a perfect predictor, then seeing $1 million in the transparent box implies that you were predicted to one-box which implies that you will one-box.
This seems to me to be that one option is deemed possible and the other impossible. Deeming an option impossible is a form of “screw this”. So this approach forms opinions of two counterfactuals.
A true situation that is so trivial its not a decision would be like. “You come across a box. You can take it.” If we complicate it even a little bit with “You come across a box. You can take it. You can leave it be.” its a non-trivial decision problem.
It might be baked in to the paradigm of providing a decision theory that it should process and opine about all the affordances available. In a given by hypothetical situation the affordances are magically fixed. But being in a real situation part of the cognition is responcible to turning the situation into a decision moment if it is warranted.
If you come across a fork in the road one agent might process it as a decisions problem “Do I go left or right?” and another might ask “Do I go north or south?”. The chopping of the situation into affordances might also be perspective relative, “Do I go left or right or turn back?” is a way to see three affordances in the same situation where another perspective would see two. An agent that just walks without pondering does not engage in deciding. The “question” of “how many affordances I should see in this situation” can be answered in a more functional manner and a less functional manner (your navigation might be greatly hampered if you can’t turn on roads).
The question of counterfactuals is placed before the problem is formulated and not after it.

Slider 8 Aug 2022 21:28 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: TAG’s comment on: Counterfactuals are Confusing because of an Ontological Shift
Off course zero not being a probability means that you don’t know with infinite strength which one is the real history of game of life. There is a perspective that probablities fundamentally are thinkresource allocations, giving a low probablity means you don’t/shouldn’t think with/about it.

Slider 8 Aug 2022 21:20 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Chris_Leong’s comment on: Counterfactuals are Confusing because of an Ontological Shift
Well it helps that concept is quite well defined but I think I was focusing on other aspect.
It seems to me that in a Trivial Decision Theory Problem, the list of stories is generated but then one of the stories hogs all the pros with everything else getting all the cons.
Whereras I was thinking of situations that the agent doesn’t percieve as having options ie that there is only one thinkable course of action (and whether this is due to impossibility or lack of imagination is not important).
Even in the “trivial analysis” of the examples for trivial decision problems there is a sense that 2 things are possible and a “screw this option” kind of though produced that refers to a course of events / action that is not undertaken. This makes it a “decision point”. Things that are not decisions do not involve referring to such representations. I have a little trouble coming up with a non-hardware examples but closest I have got is it being dark making humans sleepy (not sleep but have the night hormone levels). The human doesn’t decide to be sleepy but its a mechanism in it. Another candidate would be visual field processing. Its more like there is visual qualia popping to conciousness rather than there being decisions on “how I should see this?”, you don’t have to decide to see.
Anyway the point was that even if they are crappy sotries them being stories saves us form the ontological troubles. Another attempt at construing what is the apparent contradiction to explain.
T1: “I could take candy at T20”
T2: “I could take cake at T20”
T3: “I can’t take both candy and cake at the same time”
T4: “If I take candy my teeth will hurt at T25”
T5: “If I take candy stomach will hurt at T25”
...
T15: “Okay so take the candy”
...
T20: “Soon my teeth will hurt”
T21: “whoops I was supposed to pick up the candy”
The “equal modalities” view would say that its a problem that two mutually exclusive events are designated for T20. But them being stories emphasises that all of those thoughtstep are what is supposed to be singularly determined. T20 taking place is a different thing than having a thought with reference to T20 in it.
If you had a scheme like
T17: “I am hungry I need to eat”
T20: pick up candy
T20: pick up cake
T25: Feel pain in teeth
T25: Feel pain in stomach
And it actually takes place then we would in fact be in trouble with determinism if we are not picking up a superposition of candy+cake to eat. And it can seem like the previous planning is about such a world. But that ain’t how the classical world is at all. Exercising choice doesn’t branch you in that way. But its not like one of the stories is more priviledged than the rest bu rather the whole scheme being inapplicable.

Slider 8 Aug 2022 7:29 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: Chris_Leong’s comment on: Counterfactuals are Confusing because of an Ontological Shift
In the case that the agent generates only one story, its not really a decision point but is rather reflexive action. We could design a bad agent that when faced with a genuine decision point would just reflex through it with some predecided action. So in my mind this is turning into a question of when it is proper to drop out of reflexisive action and go through multiple stories ie how we know we are at a decision point.
If legimate (bayesian) prediction would have significant probablity mass in the future for outcomes that are widely appart in wellfare then choices could matter. If the uncertainty is due to non-self the agent should maybe be anxious but should not start to decide. If the uncertainty is due to the state of the agents actuators then decision should start. Actuator can be taken in a wide sense where everything that is influencable by the agent is an actuator. Now there is a danger that modality is just retreating to influencability. However I think that close correlation between the core self and (potential) actuator can make this issue live in the past or present rather than the future. Maybe if the nerves to your arm have just now been cut you would mistakenly take your hand to be your actuator. But if the hand has until this point obeyed your will it is prudent to make this assumption althought the agent can’t actually know whether the decision will in fact be causally linked with the arm when the decision is carried out.
What your brain is causally coupled to is subject to correct and incorrect beliefs and this forms the basis of what options you have or don’t have. I guess some of the decision theories could have different rationale how and why it would be prudent to produce what stories (brain that ignores its causal linkages and just picks stories in lockstep with its copies could be more steerable to those that create the copies, but I guess even then percieving what is the state of the world is a kind of causality bind).

Slider 6 Aug 2022 22:06 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
on: Counterfactuals are Confusing because of an Ontological Shift
I tripped pretty hard on the word “actual” there. When you are listing the options available those are fictious predictions ie very unactual.
Say you have a choice over 4 options. You are going to tell yourself 4 stories, feel about them and then enact a story which may or may not correspond to any of the previous stories.
A agent faces a choice over 0$, 50$ and 100$ and picks 50$. They are a terrible chooser. Another agent faces a choice over 0$ and 50$ and picks 50$. They are an excellent picker. If f({a,b,d}) = max({a,b,c}) good agent otherwise bad. I feel like I am not really understanding what is/was the problem here. There is a temptation to say stuff like f({a,b,c}) = a and f({a,b,c}) = b in the same breath? That the agent produces an output and that it is stable and unambigiuos just makes things straighforward.

Slider 6 Aug 2022 21:26 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 0
on: A Deceptively Simple Argument in favor of Problem Factorization
If the problem would be solvable by an anarchist group of humans that can adhoc improvise their organization then it is not that clear that a bureaucracy of AIs is fit for the task.
The implication doesn’t seem tight at all.

Slider 2 Aug 2022 16:39 UTC
3 points
0 ∶ 0
in reply to: M. Y. Zuo’s comment on: Letter from leading Soviet Academicians to party and government leaders of the Soviet Union regarding signs of decline and structural problems of the economic-political system (1970)
How big is this megaproject effect when compared for example the fraction that black budjets grab US attention today?

Slider 28 Jul 2022 11:48 UTC
4 points
0 ∶ 0
on: For Better Commenting, Stop Out Loud
The linked Socratic Grilling post has as an explicit thesis that treating the grilling as an hostile act should “never, ever say that”
There is no duty to have infinite stamina to continue a discussion but if one side runs out of stamina it doesn’t mean tha the other side automatically did something wrong.
One of the chief reasons to keep on responding is the fear the audience inference would be adverse to the quitter. The fear of what it might be can often be greater than what it actually is. The other point to balance is that some audience will draw a conclusion of “eating the bait” ie negative interference from engaging in the discussion. But even if the inference for stopping would be negative sometimes it is better to stop digging the hole you are in and accept your losses.

Slider 22 Jul 2022 10:54 UTC
3 points
1 ∶ 1
on: Making DALL-E Count
Kind of fun to guess at the bias on where it is getting things wrong.
I think for six, the dice is connected to the number because its a d6 which is the prototypical dice. Also the dots are kind of trying to form in the shape of the digit 6. I am also wondering whether the man is because “six” and “sex” kind of rhyme (and it thinks it is a “sexy man”).
Similarly are the attractive people standing in for ⁹⁄₁₀ or 10/10?
I also notice that the people groups for 4 are “Posing for a picture” ina very stereotypical way and I am wondering whether that rhyme is in play.
And ofcourse having “three trees” is one way to dissolve ambiguity between the rhymes, why not have both?
The association of 5 with handsigns is high enough that other people are making other handsigns. Or just the part hand without big signing.
I am also wondering whether for two it is in fact doing “pairs” or “couples”.
Is the left girl trying to represent “seventeen”?
I wonder whether 8 is benefitting from needing to differentiate from “lemniscate” so it doesn’t have room to be vague.

Slider 22 Jul 2022 10:17 UTC
3 points
2 ∶ 0
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Is Gas Green?
On a country level I would imagine there are not that big of spikes in demand. Maybe in winter you have 3 to 4 times more flow than without storage configurations. I have trouble imagining what kind of use case would call to throttle between no water level loss to thousandfold flow.

Slider 20 Jul 2022 13:24 UTC
0 points
0 ∶ 1
in reply to: green_leaf’s comment on: Sexual Abuse attitudes might be infohazardous
Well that concept-delineation makes sense, even if I disagree that it would not be good to employ that concept. So the case is that its impossible to rape anybody with a handjob if the target has a penis as the genital.

Slider 20 Jul 2022 10:08 UTC
0 points
0 ∶ 1
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Sexual Abuse attitudes might be infohazardous
I understood that the problem is that there is a kind of automatic reaction of “oh you were assaulted, now I am going to help you very intensely for 2 years” where the unconditionality or uncontrollability and the harm from the conduct that results are the problems. Thus the problem is “I am here, whether you like it or not” and not going “I am here, if it helps you”
It sucks that people would have legitimate fears for getting such support.
I could also imagine that some parents would put the well-being of their child in front of their own psychological comfort. Doing psychological pressure in the name of easing that “something has to be done about this” is not help. I would love for it to be the case that children could rely for their parents to be on their sides in difficult situations like this. If the child models that the parents can not or will not take it in a level-headed or constructive way I guess hiding and soloing the recovery is more constructive way forward. But I would be disappointed in such parents. And I would like the children to be able to have the trust that such disclosure will benefit them. That there is coverup is a tell that things are not going according to my utopia. Like if somebody goes “Off-course I didn’t tell my layer” that is in contradiction with the design of client-attorney priviledge similarly if somebody goes “Off-course I didn’t tell my parents” I will go “wait, why not and why is that a given?”.

Slider 20 Jul 2022 9:45 UTC
0 points
0 ∶ 1
in reply to: lc’s comment on: Sexual Abuse attitudes might be infohazardous
That sounds to me like saying that it is misleading to call somebody a thief when they are a shoplifter rather than a bank robber. Or that frauding for 2 million is not really theft when bank robbing for 100 000 is what theft looks like.
There are already quite a lot of intensifiers, so I have somewhat trouble thinking what would bump this to “proper” rape. It already has long duration. It already has threat of violence. I guess it doesn’t have lasting injuries or threat of death.
What kind of things would feel mislead about if encountering such a out of context representation? I think I am having a genuine grouping disagreement rather than just word-label disagreement.
I guess this kind of stuff is what they meant when there was an issue about whether to center the criminal definition of rape around use of violence or lack of consent.

Slider 20 Jul 2022 7:16 UTC
1 point
2 ∶ 2
in reply to: green_leaf’s comment on: Sexual Abuse attitudes might be infohazardous
Theft is theft even if not all thefts are bank robberies. What would make this not rape? Rape by handjob is not possible because there is no penetration involved? “Pulling” and “trapping” would make it seem that force was involved. And the perpertrator being older makes it so that threat of violence is in play (would they have done it to someone their own size?) . And this is presumably also against the sexual orientation of the target. It was also a pattern of abuse. It is not rape if you submit to it? It is not rape if there is no assault going with it?
Grabbing people by the crotch when you know they do not want it is quite a hefty violation of sexual autonomy.

Slider 19 Jul 2022 23:04 UTC
2 points
0 ∶ 1
in reply to: ChristianKl’s comment on: Sexual Abuse attitudes might be infohazardous
It is a balancing act and false positives are not cost free and the optimal point is unlikely to be at either extreme.
A person that could get it over with self-sufficiently is also less likely to suffer a great deal to being told they are not self-sufficient. I guess it could be interesting if there is a great assymmetery there.
The advice seems to say “room now, debrief later by somebody else” which seems to suppose that that later application elsewhere is actually beneficial.
There is an important part to the “I am here, if you need me” that leaves really open the possiblity of “No, I don’t need you”. I would rather have help rejectable than control whether you get helped by covering up your need for help.
Parents are unlikely the explicit goal to create trauma for their child. The main way I can imagine being traumatised would be to dig in and make existing trauma worse by poking it. But if there was existing trauma then he was not fine at that moment. And holding psychological scars for two years is not getting off scratch-free.